Barack Obama

TracyCoxx · #1 02-16-2009

More news on BO... Now he wants to move control of the US Census from the Commerce department to the friken Whitehouse. For those who don't know, the Census is used to determine how voting districts are defined, which has a huge effect on the outcomes of elections. Something like this should not be in the hands of any one party. It's nothing but a blatant power grab.

randolph · #2 02-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

More news on BO... Now he wants to move control of the US Census from the Commerce department to the friken Whitehouse. For those who don't know, the Census is used to determine how voting districts are defined, which has a huge effect on the outcomes of elections. Something like this should not be in the hands of any one party. It's nothing but a blatant power grab.

The voting districts are determined by local state legislators or in the case of Californa by a new special nonpartisan committee. In most cases, voting districts have been manipulated for many years to strengthen the incumbents chances of reelection. It's called gerrymandering.

franalexes · #3 02-16-2009

BUT, It doesn't belong in the Whitehouse!

randolph · #4 02-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes

BUT, It doesn't belong in the Whitehouse!

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?

TracyCoxx · #5 02-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?

No surprise there. The mainstream news has become Obama's corpse of press secretaries. The link I'm about to post will probably make your skin crawl, but nevertheless, the story is accurate. <link>.

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

randolph · #6 02-16-2009

Isn't Fox news mainstream?
This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

Quote from Wordpress.com
"Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans."

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.

TracyCoxx · #7 02-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph

Isn't Fox news mainstream?

Nah, even left wing bloggers and talk radio hosts are seated in front of Fox News at the Whitehouse press conferences now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph

This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

They are one group that is affected, and because of that they raised the issue. That doesn't change the fact that this has huge repercussions for future elections does it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.

And Obama's campaign copied Rove's strategy to get into the Whitehouse. Fine. That's a campaign strategy. That's not the same as using the power of the executive branch to define political boundaries is it?

I don't think you're going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and keep a straight face. Would you answer the statement and question I asked you from above?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

CreativeMind · #8 02-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph

Isn't Fox news mainstream?
This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

Quote from Wordpress.com
"Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans."

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.

Well, wait a minute, Randolph -- now you're running circles around your OWN argument.

First of all, you said (quote): "This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!" So to begin, I'd ask: what the hell is wrong with that? While it sounds like a great sound bite at first -- I mean, my gosh! Counting people who aren't really there! What a dirty Republican trick! -- the issue is where were the missionaries? And even more to the point, the REAL question is: how long will they be gone for? Look, last time I checked, we have this thing called "absentee ballots." We recognize that someone who isn't home at the time of an election...in his actual voting district...should STILL maintain his full citizenship rights and they deserve to have their vote counted.

So if a Mormom missionary has taken on a 6-month assignment to preach in Africa or Ugakawakawakaland or wherever the heck he is, the POINT is that his legal residence is STILL in Utah and that's WHERE he'll be coming home to because that's where he freakin' lives. So NOT counting him is equally ridiculous. It's like saying right now "Let's take a 100% fair count of ALL Hollywood residents, to find out once and for all who ACTUALLY lives there" -- but just because I was visiting friends in Vegas this weekend and wasn't around, I shouldn't be added to the tally. As if a simple 2-day weekend trip away completely NEGATES my place of residence where I ACTUALLY do live the other 363 days of the year. That's just ludicrous.

The whole POINT of the national census is NOT to take a friggin' guess at who may or may not be living in an area, to just toss a dart at the wall and randomly pick any ol' number. The POINT of the Census has always been to know just how many people live in different areas, to get as EXACTING a count as possible. And when I say an "exacting count", I mean literally just that. An actual head count -- yes, even taking into account those people who weren't at home that day because they were on a trip. Because the bottom line is THEY'RE COMING BACK! BECAUSE THEY FUCKING LIVE THERE!

In fact, this is one instance where I'll be blunt and truly partisan: Obama and the Democrats are full of fucking SHIT on this Census issue. Trying to move it into the White House and under its direct control and away from the Commerce Department (where it has historically been) is clearly a move to pull another bullshit Acorn voting fraud stunt, a less than obvious ploy to ultimately manipulate the data to realign districts to their political favor.

For Heaven's sake, look at what you wrote above. Again, I quote: "Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door."

Gee, that's rather IRONIC, isn't it? After all, who could POSSIBLY debate that an actual physical head count isn't more accurate than trying to do an "mathematical estimate"? For fuck's sake, you're even using the word "estimate" which -- by pure definition -- acknowledges that it's NOT an accurate number. That it's a "best guess" number!

Not to mention, there's also the utter CROCK to this. I love that when it comes to the Census and counting heads and determining Congressional voting districts that the Democrats are in favor of "estimates" and "mathematical models" -- yet this is the same party that when it came to the infamous Florida recount wanted every hanging chad counted thrice over or even now in the still disupted Minnesota Senatorial election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman are arguing (again) that every single ballot must be found or uncovered at all costs to ACCURATELY determine who won.

Gee, funny how that Left wing hypocrisy works.
Things are only worth ACTUALLY counting so long as it will seal a Democratic win.
Otherwise, what the hell -- let's just take a guess and go with that.